Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

Just asking for the fossil evidence for the dragonfly, what is the issue?

Why do you think that there should be such evidence?

Here's a helpful suggestion, try to learn more before jumping to bad coclusions.

 

[klutedavid]

The theory of evolution has passed this process numerous times. Every single falsifiable test it has faced it has passed with flying colors.



It's called the theory of general relativity. Are you saying you're smarter than Einstein and that he was wrong? Gravity is pretty well understood. Here is a fun video. You may learn something. It explains gravity in a very simple way:

I thought you said earlier that you aren't a geneticist. But apparently you know more about genetics then them? Have you studied ERVs in depth?



Once again, it is called the theory of general relativity. It is our best explanation for gravity based on experimentation. If you didn't hear, one of relativity's predictions was recently confirmed. (Gravitational waves).

Evolution takes place in populations not individuals. One species will never give birth to another species. This would FALSIFY evolution.



List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Enough with this PRATT argument.

Is this your tricky way of saying "But its still a dragonfly!"?
Dragonflies are apart of the order Odonata. It poses no problems for evolution.



It's stood up for 150 years. All available data supports evolution and it is contradicted by literally nothing. Considering biomedical research depends on the understanding of evolutionary theory, I find it unlikely it will be falsified.



It does not. Evolution of the dragonfly is well understood. It seems that your response to the abundance of evidence is "No its not" and then you move the goalposts.

Hello Jon.

Good post, though things are not as straight forward as you might think. The theory of general relativity sure provides a reasonable explanation for gravity. But there are problems with the theory.

Anomalies and discrepancies
There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways. (gravity.wikipedia)

We do need a better theory than the theory of relativity.

One of the problems is the daunting complexity of space time.

Even Einstein was mathematically too primitive, to explain his theory in a mathematical manner. He enlisted help from a gifted mathematician. When Einstein released his theory, I read somewhere, that only a handful of mathematicians could understand his theory.

This does not bode well for a future, upgraded general theory
of gravity.

 

[klutedavid]

Why do you think that there should be such evidence?

Here's a helpful suggestion, try to learn more before jumping to bad coclusions.

Hello Zone.

Of course I expect to observe the evidence.
If you do not have the evidence, then say so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Zone.

Of course I expect to observe the evidence.
If you do not have the evidence, then say so.

You are not being reasonable. If you want help it would be a good idea to change your attitude. You are still jumping to conclusions that only show that you know nothing of the topic.

 

[Speedwell]

I would sure would like to see, the preceding fossil record of the dragonfly. Not a speculative explanation, but the actual evidence.

Sure, that would be nice, but you didn't answer my question: what is your source for the assertion that dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record?

 

[SteveB28]

Sure, that would be nice, but you didn't answer my question: what is your source for the assertion that dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record?

I must admit, I don't understand his line of questioning at all.

Does he deny that they are insects? That they are Arthropoda? We have excellent evidence for their evolution. We have evidence also for the emergence of other winged insects.

Looks very much like someone is clutching at straws....



.

 

[Ophiolite]

When Einstein released his theory, I read somewhere, that only a handful of mathematicians could understand his theory.

I read somewhere that many people are sufficiently lacking in critical thinking that they tend to accept anything they read that confirms their worldview. I wasn't certain that was true, but extensive and careful observation has generally confirmed it. Thank you for adding to my database.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, that would be nice, but you didn't answer my question: what is your source for the assertion that dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record?

Punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Ophiolite]

Punctuated equilibrium.

That's a description of a postulated process. The source of the assertion would be the peer reviewed journal article you saw it discussed and evidenced in. So, what is your source?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said to the degree that they ignore or contradict the Bible they can become a religious issue.

Only for those people who are of the opinion that they actually contradict the bible.

And as I said, the majority of christians don't think that that is the case.

As for myself, I'm an atheist... so obviously for me there are no religious implications in anything.

Obviously there are theistic evolutionist like perhaps your Pope

"your"?
The Pope is the head/leader of the catholic church. I would have expected that you knew that.

who is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate worldly viewpoints in order to retain converts to his denomination.

The Pope doesn't feel like he has to bend over backwards, and neither to the majority of christians who have no problems with the natural sciences.

You know why? Because they don't consider the OT to be a science book that documents literal history. That's you.

In other words, you are simply projecting your own bible beliefs unto others.
These things aren't issues for the majority of christians at all. They simply don't feel like there is anything to "reconcile" the bible with, because -again- they don't consider genesis to be a science textbook detailing literal history.

His proclamation of Christianity means NOTHING if his behavior becomes suspect.

Coming up next: the no-true-scottsman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hello Sub Zone.

The formal definition is above the specific usage of the word within any ideology, regardless of the perceived importance of that ideology.

1. science is not an "ideology", but a method of inquiry

2. words can mean different things in different contexts. In case of technical context, it's also refered to as "jargon" at times.

 

[Radrook]

Only for those people who are of the opinion that they actually contradict the bible.

And as I said, the majority of christians don't think that that is the case.

As for myself, I'm an atheist... so obviously for me there are no religious implications in anything.



"your"?
The Pope is the head/leader of the catholic church. I would have expected that you knew that.



The Pope doesn't feel like he has to bend over backwards, and neither to the majority of christians who have no problems with the natural sciences.

You know why? Because they don't consider the OT to be a science book that documents literal history. That's you.

In other words, you are simply projecting your own bible beliefs unto others.
These things aren't issues for the majority of christians at all. They simply don't feel like there is anything to "reconcile" the bible with, because -again- they don't consider genesis to be a science textbook detailing literal history.



Coming up next: the no-true-scottsman.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The argument from popularity fallacy is when you say "it is correct because the majority believes it is".

That's not what I'm saying here.

The only thing I'm saying is that I observe that most christians don't agree with your generalised statement that science is anti-christianity or anti-biblical.

Rather, it is the case that science is contrary to your specific interpretation of christianity, which is an interpretation that most christians simply do not adhere to. Which puts into question your generalised statement.

 

[Radrook]

The argument from popularity fallacy is when you say "it is correct because the majority believes it is".

That's not what I'm saying here.

The only thing I'm saying is that I observe that most christians don't agree with your generalised statement that science is anti-christianity or anti-biblical.

Rather, it is the case that science is contrary to your specific interpretation of christianity, which is an interpretation that most christians simply do not adhere to. Which puts into question your generalised statement.

That depends on whether their criteria is more valid than the criteria I am using and not on their numerical preponderance which is totally irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Speedwell]

That depends on whether their criteria is more valid than the criteria I am using and not on their numerical preponderance which is totally irrelevant to the issue.

That is true as far as it goes, but for many of us within the faith there is something called Tradition, which is not based on a "numerical preponderance" but rather is an explanation for it.

I think what TGM was getting at is that there are large numbers of Christian groups for which the advent of the theory of evolution did not pose serious issues. Have you never wondered why only some Western Protestant sects have had to struggle with it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read somewhere that many people are sufficiently lacking in critical thinking that they tend to accept anything they read that confirms their worldview. I wasn't certain that was true, but extensive and careful observation has generally confirmed it. Thank you for adding to my database.

I do believe that that is true. I used to have the rather strong opinion that AGW was nonsense. I could find real scientists that supported me. But I want to know what is right more than I want to be right. I kept studying the matter and found out that I was wrong.

Many people that disagree with the scientific consensus try to claim that they are skeptics. Their actions show that this is not the case. If one can only find bogus sources that agree with you, ones with a clear and not well hidden agenda, then that person is only fooling himself.

And as to my AGW beliefs one of the sources that ironically made me realize that I was wrong was Lord Monckton. I noticed that he used the exact same debating techniques that many creationists do. That led me to looking more deeply into the science and I soon found that my initial prejudices led me down the wrong path.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I read somewhere that many people are sufficiently lacking in critical thinking that they tend to accept anything they read that confirms their worldview. I wasn't certain that was true, but extensive and careful observation has generally confirmed it.

This is plain old 'confirmation bias'. Peter Wason did some interesting research on it in the 1960s. There's a plausible explanation for it in Kahneman's 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' (p.80-81).

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is plain old 'confirmation bias'. Peter Wason did some interesting research on it in the 1960s. There's a plausible explanation for it in Kahneman's 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' (p.80-81).

This reminds me of a debate that I had with a creationist elsewhere. He thought that it was damning when Schweitzer not only found soft tissue, but possible red blood cells as well and he told her "Now try to prove that they aren't red blood cells". In other words he wanted her to do what scientists are supposed to do, to try to find flaws in her work. He thought it meant that she was supposed to prove herself wrong and that she had failed if she couldn't.

A wise scientist will try to prove himself wrong because it is without a doubt that once he or she publishes that others will be trying to prove that scientist wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This reminds me of a debate that I had with a creationist elsewhere. He thought that it was damning when Schweitzer not only found soft tissue, but possible red blood cells as well and he told her "Now try to prove that they aren't red blood cells". In other words he wanted her to do what scientists are supposed to do, to try to find flaws in her work. He thought it meant that she was supposed to prove herself wrong and that she had failed if she couldn't.

A wise scientist will try to prove himself wrong because it is without a doubt that once he or she publishes that others will be trying to prove that scientist wrong.

Quite - and the more ways a scientist fails to prove an hypothesis is wrong, the more likely it is that the hypothesis is correct.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Is this a SDA doctrine? Because I'm not familiar with it.

Bible doctrine.
The sanctuary law given to Moses dictated by GOD required a blood sacrifice that pointed forward to the Cross

Able offered a blood sacrifice
Genesis
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Always been a Blood Sacrifice required for sin

Nothing new under the sun